December

3, 1991

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLI No. 83

The House met at 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce today,

that Mrs. Joan Dawe has been appointed Assistant Deputy Minister of Community

Health in the Department of Health, and has now taken up her position. She has

moved in today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DECKER: Obviously, hon. members don't want to see

capable women being appointed to positions, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to continue with the statement,

please.

MR. DECKER: Mrs. Dawe came to the Department of Health

from a senior position in the health system, that of Executive Director of the

St. John's Hospital Council, the agency which has primary responsibility for the

planning and organization of hospital services in St. John's.

Mrs. Dawe is a graduate of St. Clare's Mercy Hospital School

of Nursing and has a Bachelor of Arts, Major in Economics and Business

Administration, from Memorial University of Newfoundland. She has completed a

course in Hospital Organization and Management from the Canadian Hospital

Association, and is a member of the Canadian College of Health Services

Executives.

She has held a number of positions in nursing practise,

administration and education, following which she held a position of Associate

Executive Director of St. Clare's Mercy Hospital.

Mrs. Dawe has played an active role in the Newfoundland

Hospital and Nursing Home Association and in the Canadian Hospital Association.

Additionally, she has been very active in a number of other health care

organizations both provincially and nationally.

I feel very pleased to have Mrs. Dawe join the executive

staff of the Department of Health, as I know she will make a significant

contribution to the department, given her extensive knowledge and experience in

the health care system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, first of all let me thank the

minister for a copy of his statement. We welcome the appointment of Mrs. Dawe to

that particular position, and we wish here well in her new position. We

compliment the Government on the appointment. It is good to see someone who has

come up through the system at the grass roots level to such an important

position as Assistant Deputy Minister of Community Health. She appears to be

very well qualified for the position. She certainly appears to have the

credentials to do a good job, having been Executive Director of the St. John's

Hospital Council and a graduate nurse, and she has a business background, as

well. We wish her well in her new role.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have a

question for the Minister of Fisheries concerning the Government's proposal

yesterday pertaining to the Joint Fisheries Management Board. I ask the

minister, if the Federal Government accepted the Newfoundland Government's

proposal for joint fisheries management, can he tell the House what

responsibilities for fisheries management would remain with the Provincial

Government and the Provincial Department of Fisheries?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries.

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, even though a lot of the current

responsibilities of the Department of Fisheries would become part of that board

and be vested in that joint board, there would still be considerable

responsibility left with the Department of Fisheries. For example, the routine

re-issuance of processing licences, plant inspection, facilities management in

the Province of Newfoundland. We own and operate, now, about 200-and-some-odd

facilities around the Province, marine service centres, fish plants wharves,

slipways.

Aquaculture, Mr. Speaker, is taking on a new role within the

Province and that is something that the department would be very much involved

in. Resource and industry development: for example, a lot of emphasis is now

being put on secondary processing, the processing of underutilized species and,

of course, the re-administration of fisheries loans, etc. So, believe me, the

Department of Fisheries will have lots to keep busy and would not be without

responsibility and without things to do.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A supplementary to

the minister. The Premier said yesterday that the joint board would be a

cannibal to the provincial and federal ministers. I would like to refer the

minister to

section 55 of the Government's proposal here, where it states that,

'except for limited circumstances, the decisions of the board should be final

except for appeals to the courts.' Now, is this the Provincial Government's

ideal of accountability, and won't this board really strip the minister of all

responsibility for fisheries in the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries.

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, to some extent, maybe this is

the Province's way of politicising the fisheries and certain aspects of the

fishing industry. Maybe the members opposite would not agree but I think most

people will agree that it is necessary. There will be a public hearing process,

Mr. Speaker. The ministers will have certain prerogatives. In areas of policy,

for example, policies respecting their respective jurisdictions, the two

ministers would have the right to overturn certain decisions. In the case of

licensing decision and user group allocations, these decisions will stand,

unless in exceptional cases, an appeal to the minister is permissible, but

certainly, Mr. Speaker, any of us who have served in this portfolio, will

recognize the need to take politics out of the realm of the issuing of licences

or quota allocations. That is probably one of the big advantages, plus the fact

that the public will have ample opportunity to have an input into the major

decision-making of that board.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.

I am wondering if the minister can confirm, under

section 44

of the proposal dealing with industry development, that industry development

that would go to the joint management board would consist of all activity

associated with the development of the fishing industry, including the

aquacultural industry, development of harvesting, processing, and marketing

sectors, and the development of fisheries infrastructure? I am wondering, as

well, could the minister confirm that the new board would have specific

activities for new gear, development of methods, construction, operation and

maintenance of fisheries infrastructure such as wharves, community stages,

slipways, marine service centres, vessel fleet development including fisheries

loan board activities, processing studies, and projects related to quality and

productivity, and yield enhancement? Can the minister confirm that this is

really what he is turning over to this joint management board, if it is

accepted? And, really, what would be the reason for the Province to have a

Department of Fisheries and a Minister of Fisheries when you are throwing it all

away to someone else?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries.

MR. CARTER: I suppose you can pick holes in any paper, or

any proposition, but the fact remains, Mr. Speaker, that as it is now

structured, the fishing industry in Newfoundland is at a very grave

disadvantage, in that more often than not the right hand does not know what the

left hand is doing. That has been one of the problems that we have had to

encounter in the fishing industry. The joint board, made up of federal and

provincial, with a chairman appointed by the board, will have certain powers and

the respective ministers will also have certain powers, and certain rights of

overruling the board. There will be a number of things done within the board but

the Department of Fisheries will still be responsible for administering, for

example, the marine service centre program, and other infrastructure owned by

the department. Aquaculture, Mr. Speaker, will be very much a part of the

responsibility of the Department of Fisheries. There will be some involvement,

no doubt, on the part of the board but, by and large, the development of

aquaculture will remain the sole prerogative of the Provincial Department of

Fisheries.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: I think the minister is somewhat confused.

I suggest that he read very carefully the document that the Premier made public

yesterday, as I did last night, and there are some very glaring things there

that really make one wonder.

But I want to ask the Minister: why didn't the Province

pursue with the Federal Government the right to give to Newfoundland and

Labrador authority for allocations for divvying up our portion of the total

allowable catch so that we could give it amongst our user groups? Why didn't

they pursue licensing of vessels for Newfoundland and Labrador, to ask the

Federal Government to give us that? Because if we had that, combined with our

jurisdiction and authority over processing, which we have, and the Fisheries

Loan Board, we would pretty well have it all. If we had that we would not need a

joint management board. Newfoundland and Labrador could then have control of its

own fishery. Why didn't the Minister and the Government pursue with the Federal

Government giving us the allocation and licensing of vessels? Then we could run

a pretty good fishery in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries.

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, there is more to the fishing

industry than the authority to issue licences to fishing vessels. That is why we

look upon this board as being a board that can make the fishing industry in

Newfoundland a much more viable industry, and will make the management of it a

much more viable operation.

The whole purpose of the board is to integrate the Federal

and Provincial responsibilities in fisheries. For example, it is often the case

now where we have responsibility for the processing sector.

Whereas, like I said

a moment ago, the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. For

example, how can we properly plan a strategy to develop the processing sector if

we have no authority whatever over the allocation of the various species or the

setting of the TAC or have any input whatever into the decision making process

of the total allowable catch?

So what this board proposes is that both the Province and the

Federal Government will share certain responsibilities. All of which is

necessary to have an orderly development of the fishing industry.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the

Minister of Education. Now that the President of Treasury Board has told the

Conception Bay South Integrated Board that they will receive the same amount of

funding under the new regime as the Avalon Consolidated Board, I wonder if the

Minister of Education would now give the same guarantee to every other school

board throughout the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I see the

hon. Member looking to the gallery. You must have some special interest in the

gallery. But in answer to the question, very shortly the Government will make

its announcement on the whole school tax question. We will provide the details,

and certainly it is this Government's intention to abolish or totally reform the

system, and to provide equality for education throughout the Province. That is

our commitment, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. HEARN: We have a second minister who has not yet been

informed by the Premier what he can say.

I ask the minister then: now that the President of Treasury

Board has admitted that they are going to fund boards from the Government, how

much is this going to cost the Government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, this must be a difficult time

for the hon. member, very difficult. He has been defending the school tax for so

long, defending it as the right way to fund education, and now he finds that

this Government is going to change it. This Government is going to change the

whole system, and provide greater equality of educational opportunity in this

Province. We have not put a figure yet on the amount that it is going to cost,

but we will level up to provide equal opportunity throughout the whole Province,

and rural Newfoundland in particular will benefit.

Now it is very difficult for the hon. Member to accept that.

My feeling is, Mr. Speaker, that he has been for reform for years, but his

caucus or his government would not do it. Now this Government is going to do it,

and we will find the money to provide greater equality of educational

opportunity in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of the problems I had in making decisions was I was

getting poor advice from the people whom I hired to do studies for me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: That was a good one!

MR. HEARN: The minister knows how much it is going to

cost to equalize all school boards throughout the Province, it is going to be in

the vicinity of $50 million or $60 million. I wonder if the minister will tell

us how Government plans to raise that extra money.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member - if I might be

a little modest and say that he chose the best people in the country to do the

study for him, and -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. WARREN: - and he did ignore the advice, but this

Government is looking very carefully at that report, an outstanding report known

as the Roebothan Report, an outstanding report, and this Government is looking

at that.

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the hon. member will have to wait

until the Government makes its announcement as to where it is going to get the

funds to replace it, if the school tax is abolished. We will make that

announcement very shortly, Mr. Speaker. We hope to do it shortly to allay any of

the concerns and the uncertainty that people have in the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to get back to the Minister of Fisheries, and ask him

if he would clarify something for the House. A few moments ago, in answering

questions asked by my colleague, the Opposition House Leader, the Minister said,

or at least I think he said, that the Provincial Department of Fisheries would

retain responsibility for programs like aquaculture. I think he specifically

said that.

Can he tell me, then, what the Government's own document

means, on page 20 and 21, in two places: Under

Section 44, where it talks about

resource and industry development, and it says, "Resource development also

includes complimentary harvesting, processing, and marketing activities, as well

as aquaculture development; and then up on top of the next page it says,

"Industry development consists of all activities associated with the development

of the fishing industry, including the aquaculture industry? These are items

that will be referred to the board and for which the board will be responsible."

A moment ago he said the provincial department would retail responsibility.

Which is it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries.

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, what I said a moment ago is

accurate, the Department of Fisheries will retain certain responsibilities for

aquaculture. There is considerable aquaculture going on at the present time in

the Province. No doubt there will be areas with respect to policy matters that

will become administered by the board. But the day-to-day operation of the

aquaculture industry, Mr. Speaker, as it is currently structured, will be the

responsibility of the Provincial Department of Fisheries.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs. The minister will be aware that the new property assessments in St.

John's have resulted in an increase in property assessments of up to an average

of 25 per cent. The Mayor has indicated that the mil rate may stay the same or

increase depending on the cost of amalgamation. What assurance can the minister

give the citizens of St. John's that their municipal taxes will not increase by

25 per cent or more as a result of his policies?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, under the present tax system,

where we do not have the Province completely computerized - and St. John's, of

course, does its own in any case - it is difficult to do assessments as

frequently as municipalities would like. I understand that they plan to have it

more frequently now that they are on computer, but it has been every five years.

So, that jump of 25 per cent is a large amount, but it is five years since the

last assessment was done.

As far as the mil rate is concerned, Mr. Speaker, I obviously

cannot speak for the City of St. John's and any decision they may make as to

retaining their present mil rate or increasing their mil rate. That is a

question that would have to be put, I think, to the Mayor.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East, on

a supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, is the minister prepared to

examine the cost of amalgamation to the citizens of St. John's, in particular,

let's say, to those in Wedgewood Park and the Goulds, who, in addition to having

their mil rate increased to whatever the St. John's rate is, will be facing

perhaps an increase of 25 per cent in assessment? Is the minister prepared to

consider some relief to these taxpayers from these harsh tax increases caused by

his policies?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, again I cannot speak for the

City of St. John's, what they may do with the adjoining areas, the Goulds,

Wedgewood Park and parts of Metro Board that are being joined to the City, as

well. In some cases, I understand, the mil rates will increase, because they are

lower now. Metro Board, that is not the case, I don't believe. I think Metro

Board is substantially the same. But, certainly, the Goulds and Wedgewood Park

are below the City of St. John's as far as their mil rates are concerned, and

those mil rates will go up, I assume. I don't think there is any doubt that the

City will have a similar mil rate for similar services throughout the city.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East, on

a supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fear that the

citizens of St. John's, in particular, these new areas, have about the costs of

amalgamation to them personally, as taxpayers, and to the City, is the minister

prepared to review - or does he know the costs of amalgamation? Is he prepared

to review the costs that will be impacted on the citizens and municipal

governments involved, and consider providing some financial support to make that

impact gradual, say, over a period of four or five years? Is he prepared to do

that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I have been saying consistently

that in every amalgamation we have done - and we have done some fourteen

groupings - in every case where it is shown there is a disparity and an

unfairness as a result of amalgamation, as a Government, we are willing to look

at it. If municipalities are put together and they are able to handle their

expenses with the revenues that are in place, assuming a blending of the mil

rates, on an equal basis, that that would be fair, we would not be expected to

help in any way. But, if there is an unfairness and that can be shown, Mr.

Speaker, we would be willing to look at it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question

for the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture. On October 23, 1989, a commission

was appointed, a task force, in which Commissioner, Bud Hulan, was set the task

to study the agricultural activities in the Province and give a report. He gave

that report on February 14, 1991, just about a year ago, and we haven't heard

very much about it since. Could the minister inform this House and the people of

the Province where that report is now and what is the next step he will take

with respect to that report?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that March of

1991 to November of 1991 is hardly a year. About a year ago, he said; it is

closer to half a year, I would think.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: March to the end of November? Mr. Speaker,

the report was received, as the hon. member suggested, in late February.

It contained a lot of recommendations on the various sectors

that had financial implications. We struck a committee of senior civil servants

to analyze the various recommendations and to advise Government, through me, as

to the cost implications and as to what, given the financial restraints and

everything else, we should do with regard to the recommendations.

I might say to the hon. member that the report of that very

senior civil service committee is pretty well done. They have been briefing me

over the past month or so and I will shortly be making decisions on their

recommendations. Government will deal with the recommendations that I will bring

to them as a result of that review, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride, on a

supplementary.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. A

supplementary to the minister. I wonder could the minister tell the House and

the people of this Province, particularly the farmers, when he expects the

in-house committee report, I guess we could call it, or senior civil servants'

report, to be completed, and when he will be able to act on some of the

recommendations in the report of this second committee?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: In due course, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the real reason the minister

doesn't want to answer is because he had a report from a hard-working committee

just about a year ago, from February 14 to this year, and he put it off - a

typical bureaucratic hideaway - he put it off to another committee so he could

bury it.

Mr. Speaker, is it not true that the commissioner, Mr. Bud

Hulan, is desperately trying to get some publicity for his report by presenting

recommendations to the Task Force on the Economy, the Advisory Council, and by

holding a food conference, I believe it was last week, down at the Radisson

Hotel? Is he not doing this because he understands that the minister is trying

to bury this report, and nothing will be done about it? If something is not done

about it this week it will be too late for next year's Budget, anyway. Isn't the

minister burying this report because he doesn't want to do anything for the

farmers of this Province in next year's Budget?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member, I think, has his question asked. The hon.

the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, Dr. Bud Hulan is one of the most

professional, knowledgable and credible people in agriculture in Newfoundland

today, and I am certainly not going to attribute motives to a man of that

stature in the agricultural industry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, the one point of which Dr. Bud

Hulan is very supportive and very appreciative, is he knows that the

agricultural community in Newfoundland had, for fifteen years, been demanding a

task force to look at agriculture in this Province. That request was ignored,

and, of course, when we became the Government, we commissioned a task force

report. I have had it seven or eight months and we will, in due course, deal

with the recommendations made by Dr. Hulan.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Six months

ago, Mr. Justice Hughes presented his commission report to the minister's

predecessor. Would the new Minister of Justice tell us whether he has read the

report, and would he say whether he will now release to the public all of the

report, or parts of the report, in particular the parts dealing with the justice

system - the police, the crown attorneys, and also the critique of the

Department of Social Services? Has the minister read the report, and will he

consider now releasing to the public all or part of the report?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the member can appreciate, I have not had an opportunity

to review the report in detail myself, as of yet; however, on the release of the

report, the Government's position remains the same, that we will not release the

report until the trials relating to this matter have been completed, and there

are still trials ongoing. At the conclusion of the trials, consideration will be

given to the release of the report.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East, on a

supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will have to come back to that later, but I have a new

question now, for the Minister of Social Services. On October 1, 1990, fourteen

months ago, the minister's predecessor made a significant change in social

assistance policy, categorizing maintenance and child support as non-allowable

instead of allowable income. That change resulted in an overnight drop in income

of up to 20 per cent for hundreds of single mothers and their children. I would

like to ask the minister to tell us whether his department has studied the

effects of that change and, if so, I call on the minister to release the

findings.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, that particular question is still

under review. It will probably be completed in the next couple of weeks, and

hopefully, we will be able to release the position on it then.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I interpret the minister's response as a commitment to

release to the public his department's assessment of the result of the change in

social assistance policies.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Would the minister say, now, how much money

the change has saved the Provincial Government? We know how very much it has

cost hundreds of single mothers and their children. What we would like to know

is how much it has saved the Provincial Government.

Will the minister tell us whether, on getting the assessment

of his officials, he will consider reversing this terribly regressive policy?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. HOGAN: Yes, to the last question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HOGAN: That is why the review is being done, and that

is why we are assessing the situation, as we did with the single parents. We

will address this question as justly as we did that one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Mines and Energy. Last

week, in response to a question from me concerning a published report re

financial assistance to Newfoundland Processing, the operator of the refinery at

Come By Chance, the minister responsible said, and I quote from Hansard, "I do

know that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has bought some crude from Come By

Chance. They normally tender for their crude." I am assuming from that, Mr.

Speaker, that the crude referred to is Bunker C. I wonder if the minister can

tell us if Newfoundland Hydro, a Crown corporation, did not go through the

normal tendering process?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland Hydro is subject

to the public tendering process, and they go through the public tendering

process for their purchases, unless there is some particular item that they have

to sole source and that is indicated in the published reports that we see

regularly, when they do have to sole source something.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Menihek, on a

supplementary.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, he still has not cleared the

uncertain financial cloud surrounding this issue. I specifically asked the

minister if, indeed, Newfoundland Hydro tendered for the purchase of the crude

that he is referring to.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the details of

exactly how it bought its crude from Come By Chance. I am not sure exactly what

it bought from Come By Chance, or if it was a petroleum product. I understand it

did buy some product from Come By Chance.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Menihek, on a

supplementary.

MR. A. SNOW: I wonder if the minister - it was last week

when I originally asked these questions - would be able to tell us how much the

Crown corporation paid for this crude and how much was purchased, how much they

paid for each barrel.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I don't know the details. I

will take the question under advisement and find out.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations. Last month, I guess, the minister got a copy of the Workers'

Compensation Statutory Review. Last week, the board announced an 8 per cent

increase in compensation rates to employers in the Province. Is this one of the

recommendations that came out of the report, and has the minister started to

implement some of the recommendations that are in it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, in terms of, Have we started to implement recommendations

in the report. As I indicated to the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, upon

release of the report that day, we were going to take the remainder of 1991 to

provide an opportunity for the stakeholders in the system to give a direct

response to the specific recommendations because they had had an opportunity to

deal with the matters that were important to them in Workers' Compensation

before the review committee. That process is taking place just this morning. As

a matter of fact, I met with the Advisory Council on Occupational Health and

Safety, and dealt with a number of the recommendations that were of concern to

them. There are meetings arranged with the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation

of Labour, and with the Newfoundland and Labrador Employers Council in which

they will be reacting to the specific recommendations. The board of the

commission has released it's assessment rate at this point in time based on

their own financial analysis of what kinds of monies will need to be collected

in the next calendar year - operational year - from the employers that pay so

they can project a balanced budget for next year.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Naskaupi.

MR. KELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce the

following resolution:

WHEREAS drinking and driving claims the lives of over forty

Canadians weekly and injures another 1250; and

WHEREAS there is still a significant amount of ignorance

about the problem and the consequences of drinking and driving; and

WHEREAS all citizens are repulsed by these senseless acts of

violence and recognize the need for significant deterrents;

BE IT RESOLVED that the Provincial Government take steps to

address the problem, specifically in terms of penalties and education, and

provide meaningful access for interested groups to voice their concerns;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House of Assembly make

presentation to the Federal Government to address the problem in a similar

manner.

If I may say so, Mr. Speaker, I understand that it is

possible - I intended to give notice today, if possible by unanimous consent of

the House that this matter could be dealt with today in the appropriate place on

our Order Paper. I leave that to our Leaders and to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated the other day in

the House when the hon. member presented the petition on behalf of the 4000

residents of the Province, including a fair number from his own area, that I

would be prepared to second any resolution he put forward. This is the

resolution I would support and with the concurrence of the Government House

Leader, if he agrees, I said at that time we would be willing to pass such a

resolution without further debate because I think it is unanimous in any event.

Therefore, it would be appropriate to do it right now at this time if the Member

for St. John's East agrees, and the Government House Leader lets us do it now by

a voice vote.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do support the resolution, although I think hon. members

will know that over the last number of years there have been significant changes

in the criminal code which have increased the deterrence and penalties for

drinking and driving, and the penalties offered by the courts in terms of fines

and suspensions, which are in fact larger in this Province than in many other

provinces. Despite this, and we have seen a decrease in the number of drinking

and driving offenses in this Province, there is still a serious problem. Some

other countries deal with drinking and driving offenses far more seriously than

us, particularly in terms of licensing and the effect of that.

The motion itself, I think, is a good one and deserves the

support of the whole House. I will say that there may be a typographical error

in the last word. It says, matter, and I believe the intention is that it should

be manner. The last word of the resolution is there asking the Federal

Government to address the problem in a similar matter. I think that word should

be manner. Perhaps the mover and seconder would accept that as a typographical

correction.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible)

MR. HARRIS: To the hon. Leader of the Opposition, I read

the resolution and I do offer my unanimous consent to also have the matter dealt

with now.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour of the motion, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

Those against, 'nay'.

I declare the motion carried.

The hon. the Member for Naskaupi.

MR. KELLAND: There are two things, Mr. Speaker, if I may.

One, it is read into the record as manner, just as a small point. Is it normal

to show that, that motion goes out of the House as unanimous? I ask that it be

recorded as such, please.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Question Period the

hon. Member for Harbour Main asked some questions concerning the doctor

situation in Goose Bay and I undertook to get the facts for him. As a matter of

fact the hon. member said that there were eight vacancies in Goose Bay. Now, I

have been in touch with the Melville Hospital and the complement for Goose Bay,

Mr. Speaker, is seven general practitioners, one general surgeon, one

anaesthetist and one obstetrician. Now during the summer of 1991, there were

four vacancies but for the last couple of months all positions have been filled,

Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. DECKER: - in fact, this is the best situation the

hospital has seen in many, many years, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the

administrator says, that there was not a turnover of eight doctors in the last

two years, let alone in the last year. Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Harbour

Main has been set up again. Obviously, he has been misled by a malicious Liberal

and I pity the hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I stand to present a

petition on behalf of somewhere between 8,000 and 10,000 people in the St.

John's and western Avalon areas, who petition the House of Assembly as follows:

That school tax is needed for education of our children and that the public be

consulted through public hearings before any decision is made on tax reform.

Mr. Speaker, we have a petition here containing somewhere

between 8,000 and 10,000 names in this immediate area, that, if you did a rough

calculation of the parents in the area will show that a large percentage of the

parents have signed the petition. Why? The answer is simple. Out of concern for

what is happening to funding in education. For over a year and actually over two

years since the last election, the present Government has been fooling around

with educational funding.

If we turn the clocks back to six months preceding the

election, the Government members and in particular the Premier, were going

around the Province talking about funding education. One of the big planks in

the Liberal platform, was proper funding of education. The former President of

the NTA says: when was that? He did not know because he was too busy going

around looking for a fair share and the former Government started to put a

program in place to give them a fair share and the Premier jumped upon it and

said: this is tremendous, equalization, but not over five years, we will do it

right away and what have they done? They have turned the clock the other way and

turned the funds the other way because instead of improving the lot of school

boards, the present Government has diminished the amount of funding going to the

school boards in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true.

MR. HEARN: It is true and the figures are there in black

and white, black and white. The members, when they were campaigning, campaigned

on the abolition of school tax.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no.

MR. HEARN: There are radio stations in this Province that

can provide tapes of members, in their paid ads, promising to abolish school

tax.

The President of Treasury Board introduced a resolution in

the House to have school tax abolished. It is there in Hansard. The point is the

Government got elected because they said they were going to abolish school tax

authorities and school tax. What they did when they realized they were in a jam

is spend two and a half years trying to develop a mechanism to save face. Now

for this past year and a half they have been saying: well - the Premier did not

say it, it does not matter what anybody else said anyway, and the Premier says

that to his own people. You know, it does not matter what you said, it is

insignificant. He said: we will abolish or reform. So the problem is reforming

school tax. He found out that it was extremely hard to reform the school tax

authorities because they were doing a very good job of reforming themselves over

this last few years, and they realized that we had a funding mechanism over

which the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, will you ask them -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat, please. I ask hon.

members on both sides of the House, and particularly hon. members to my left, to

refrain from interrupting during the petition. The petition is only a short

time, and both sides have an opportunity to respond, and we should keep our

responses for that.

The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

We see the old defence mechanisms kicking in because a lot of

people are extremely embarrassed over what is happening. As I was saying, over

this past year and a half the Government has been trying to find a way to get

rid of school tax authorities to save face, and yet not embarrass themselves,

and it has been difficult. It has been extremely difficult. What they have done,

in the meantime, is create a tremendous amount of uncertainty out there where a

lot of people do not know whether school tax authorities or school tax have been

abolished, and a lot of people are not paying their taxes, and consequently the

boards are suffering. Then we have -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HEARN: Oh, that is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in presenting the petition with,

as I said, anywhere from 8,000 to 10,000 signatures.

MR. SPEAKER: Are there further petitions?

The hon. the Member for St. John's East Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to have a few words on the petition, and I must

congratulate -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I passed that petition, nobody stood, and I asked if there

were further petitions.

MR. SIMMS: He is entitled (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: He is entitled, everybody is entitled, but

the Chair can invite people - I waited and asked if there were further

petitions. There were no further petitions.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, there has never been that big a

fuss before about this.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Grand Bank.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to submit to

Your Honour that it was standard practice in this legislature before this

Minister of Education came that the presenter would present the petition and the

minister would respond if he so desired. What has happened here is that the

minister played a waiting game. It was the intention of the Member for St.

John's East Extern to speak to the petition presented by the Member for St.

Mary's - The Capes. We have reverted back time and time again to Petitions

before when we jumped ahead, and I think it would only be fair, I submit to Your

Honour, that the Member for St. John's East Extern be permitted to speak to the

petition.

MR. SIMMS: Unless the minister wants to speak.

MR. MATTHEWS: Unless the minister wants to speak first.

He can, and then he will follow, or perhaps the minister does not want to speak.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To that point of order, I would like to remind the House that

what the Opposition House Leader has just said is simply not correct. In terms

of petitions there is no custom of back and forth across the House at all. That

has not been my experience in the six and a half years that I have sat in this

hon. House. As a matter of fact, a speaker introduces a petition and quite often

there are no responses. Quite often two speakers from the same side respond or

speak to the petition before there is a response from the Government benches.

This is quite common, quite normal, and I do not want the Opposition House

Leader to leave people with the impression that something out of the ordinary is

going on here, Mr. Speaker, it is just that they got caught. That is all.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is not the Chair's job to invite members to speak. The

Chair looks around and waits a sufficient time. If nobody rises then the Chair

goes on to the next order. Hon. Members can appreciate if that were not the case

we would get into all kinds of problems. What the Chair does is ask if there is

permission to revert back, and I assume that permission is not given to revert

back.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Permission is not given to revert back? Yes

or no.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Revert back and give the hon. Member a

chance to speak?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It did not

come easy. I want to congratulate the hon. Member for St. Mary's - The Capes on

his very fine presentation. I must ask the House's indulgence at my little lapse

there for a moment. Because I will have to be truthful, I was expecting the

Minister of Education to get up, and I am assuming now that he has no intentions

of rising, because he would not have a chance to speak on this if I had not, so

I am assuming that he is not going to speak.

But in saying that, I will have to go on record tonight in

saying that I was a member of the St. John's School Board when the school tax

was started, was brought about. It just did not come in an ad hoc manner. There

was lots of consultation, lots of debate. I for one had problems with it, the

same as all other members of the school board.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Minister - could

you ask him just to be quiet while I am making my presentation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has asked for order and all

Members should extend that courtesy.

The hon. the Member for St. John's East Extern may continue.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, why we consented to bring in

the tax was very simple. We took into consideration the needs of the students

first of all; the facilities where the students attended school, which was in

great need of more money that was not available from other funding. The question

comes across from the other side: why didn't we give it to them? Well, I do not

know how that Member reads things, but the point remains there is $30 million

spread over the school system from the School Tax Authority.

I have to say there that again this money has a local control

aspect to it, where the boards can spend the money where they deem the necessity

arises. I think that in itself speaks well of the School Tax Authority. Because

there are needs there that government departments would not know about, and the

need is for the local authority to address those matters. I think the School Tax

Authorities do just that.

Again, we talked at length, days, nights - there was a whole

group of men and women which had no axe to grind, nothing to gain, only what was

to be gained by the students and the system in general. That is why we brought

in the School Tax Authority. Now the School Tax Authority started I think with a

secretary and a manager. Today it has grown, but naturally, it has grown.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I must address the Member for

Mount Scio - Bell Island. I am speaking to a petition. You didn't have the guts

to bring in a petition only just a few months ago!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Now I am speaking to a petition. I would

like to -

MR. WALSH: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member on a point of order.

MR. WALSH: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) hon. Member (Inaudible) raise it

after (Inaudible)!

MR. WALSH: Well, why did he raise it now?

MR. SIMMS: Raise it after!

MR. WALSH: No, I will raise it now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have recognized the hon. Member, please, and I ask him to

make the point of order or sit down!

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, not only did I present the

petition, the Opposition granted me leave to clue up.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

I would ask the hon. Member to continue with his petition.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I do not

think there is anyone within the School Tax Authority who would say tomorrow:

sure, make changes to the School Tax Authority. Perhaps there are too many

school tax authorities. I do not think there is anyone who will disagree with

that. If the Government is prepared to say to the School Tax Authorities: we

will guarantee you the $30 million plus an escalation clause over the next ten

years, then I do not think there is anyone within that body who will disagree.

But what those people are asking for, what the 10,000 people

are asking for is a guarantee from Government that we can sustain at least, at

the status quo, the educational system that we now enjoy. We are always

listening to people saying our educational system is not up to par with some

others in this great country and perhaps that is true, but now, if this money

goes into general revenue, what assurance do the people have that $30 million

will come out of general revenue and go to where this money is needed? That is

the problem.

School Tax Authorities, when the Premier went around the

Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. PARSONS: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up. He does not have the leave.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

DR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I want

to correct some of the misinformation in the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes,

preamble to the presentation of the petition. This party, this Government, in

the last election we promised to either abolish or reform the school tax. I want

to make that perfectly clear.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. WARREN: I threaten to strap some of those people who

talk about abolition only, but we promised, as a party to either abolish or

reform. Mr. Speaker, after we came to power we immediately did something about

the school tax issue.

The former Government had introduced the tax equalization

scheme and in the first year they gave $2 million, in the second year $2.5

million and in the third year, $4.5 million. Now, it would have been easier for

this Government to add another million the next year, two the next year, three

the next year, but in the first year that we were in Government, Mr. Speaker, we

increased school tax equalization from $4.5 million to $10 million -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. WARREN: - in the first year, and we began immediately

to fulfil our commitment, to either reform or abolish. It has taken a long time,

it has taken longer than many of us had anticipated, but we decided to look at

the whole tax system. The Minister of Finance has conducted a thorough review of

the whole tax system and we are fulfilling our commitment to abolish or reform

within that context, and, Mr. Speaker, shortly, we will announce what our

position is. I think everybody agrees that the school tax itself is a regressive

tax. It is a regressive tax irrespective of how much money you make, you pay the

same tax with certain exemptions.

The tax results in grossly differing revenues in the Province

and in some areas of the Province, there is twice, three times what is raised in

other areas and, Mr. Speaker, the tax is relatively inefficient and this

Government is either going to conduct major reforms or abolish. I understand the

concerns of school boards. I pay tribute to school boards. We are operating in a

system that requires more money, the system is underfunded, but having said

that, we must reform the present school tax system, we must do it and we will do

it and very shortly we will make our announcements on that, so that we can

provide greater equality of educational opportunity for all people in this

Province, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Motion 6, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 6. To Move, pursuant to Standing

Order 50, that the debate or further consideration of Second Reading of Bill No.

50, "

An Act To Facilitate The Amalgamation Of Certain Municipal Authorities And

Municipal Services In Relation To The Northeast Avalon Region", standing in the

name of the hon. Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and any amendments

to that motion for Second Reading of Bill No. 50 shall not be further adjourned

and that further consideration of any amendments relating to Second Reading of

Bill No. 50 shall not be further postponed.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I guess the real message that is coming from

this piece of legislation is the fact that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before I recognize the hon. member, just a procedural matter

here. We have to pass the motion that we just read.

All those in favour of the motion, please say, 'Aye'. All

those against the motion, please say 'Nay'. Carried.

MR. BAKER: Order 14.

MR. SPEAKER: Now, we are back to Order 14. What it is we

are debating 14 under Motion 6 which is closure.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is very important

that, that procedure be followed because it is indicative of, I think, the real

message that comes from this particular piece of legislation, the failure and

disregard of this Government to take into consideration the wishes of the

people. That is a sad commentary, Mr. Speaker, when a Government is totally

unconcerned for the wishes of the people, has no respect for the wishes of the

people, and no desire to take into account very strong submissions made to this

Government on a particular issue. In particular, I speak of course, of this

particular amalgamation motion. The debate has gone on for some time. It is

interesting that the Premier has hardly been in his seat this week during this

debate, and the minister went off to Bristol, we all know that. He made a feeble

attempt at defending himself over the weekend and I was absolutely amazed to

hear the minister quoted. I assume he was quoted correctly, if not, no doubt he

will correct the Evening Telegram.

The Evening Telegram quoted the minister as saying that it

really was not important for him to be here. He opened the debate ten days ago

and he will be here to close it tonight, or whenever we finally finish with this

closure motion, and what was the point of him sitting in between listening.

Well, Mr. Speaker, what is the point of having legislation before the House of

Assembly at all if members, and particularly ministers responsible are not going

to listen? What is the purpose of a Legislature if people are not going to have

an opportunity to represent the people they have been elected to represent and

to have people who are making the laws of this land listen to the voices of the

people? Now, that is clearly what that minister said in his comment to the

Evening Telegram over the weekend, that it really is not important. This

Government has made up its mind. He as the minister has brought forward a

motion. It will be approved, using the majority of the House of Assembly. It

will be approved, as we now know, using closure to stifle debate in the House of

Assembly. The minister has said: I am not going to listen to the people. And, I

will deal with that in a moment. He said: I am not going to listen to the

members, I want to go off to Bristol because there is no point in me being here

all week, and government said: we are not going to let the members speak too

long, we will use a closure motion - incredible contrast to the words of the

Premier. He was also quoted in the Evening Telegram of Friday 29 in comments he

made dealing with Mr. Clark. He says: I think he made an national commitment to

provide for an opportunity for the people of Canada to have a say, Premier Wells

said Thursday. It is clear that if the people of Quebec have a right to have a

say then surely the people of the rest of the country also have a right to have

a say. An interesting comment coming from a Premier who leads a Government that

is forcing this piece of legislation through the House of Assembly and who has

used closure more in the last two year than ever in the history of this House of

Assembly. I think closure was used maybe three or four times in the history of

this House of Assembly until two years ago when this Government came into power.

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible) nature of the Opposition to

close the House when -

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the Member for St. John's South

has contributed nothing to this debate. He was away all last week so please ask

him to stay quiet while I am trying to make my few final comments in the twenty

miserable minutes that have been allocated to me under this closure motion.

MR. MURPHY: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South on

a point of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is a point of foolishness, Mr.

Speaker, and not a point of order.

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, continually the Member for Mount

Pearl makes reference to other hon. members who are not in the House. I ask him

to retract that statement.

MR. SPEAKER: I do not think that the hon. Member for

Mount Pearl had made any disparaging remark about the member's absence but if

the hon. member did I am sure he will withdraw it. I ask the hon. member to

continue.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.

I made no disparaging remarks. In fact if the hon. minister

took (inaudible) he did the House a favour in doing so.

Mr. Speaker, I want to get back to this important issue. We

are talking about listening to the people here. Last spring I brought forward a

petition to this House with 18000 names on it, many of whom were from the

minister's own district. A couple of weeks ago I presented a second petition, or

three further petitions in this House, one with 16,000 names on it from within

the boundaries of the City of Mount Pearl, one with 1000 names on it from the

Elizabeth Drive subdivision area, and one with almost 6000 names on it from the

minister's own district of Waterford - Kenmount, within the City of St. John's,

and Cowan Heights Subdivision, Mr. Speaker. That minister had the gall to stand

in this House and say: we know what is best for the people, and we think we are

doing what the people want us to do. How much proof does the minister want?

Is the minister aware of a poll that was done last week in

relation to the fire department? The minister tried to tell us that the majority

of the people of the region are in favour of this kind of a regional service. I

say to the minister, as I have said in the House three or four times during the

past week, that the majority of the people of this region do indeed support the

concept, the notion of regional services, but this is not regional services we

are talking about here. We are talking about services that are being imposed on

municipalities against their will - without any input - it is taxation without

representation. We are not talking amalgamation here, Mr. Speaker - we are

talking annexation. The people of Wedgewood Park and the Goulds are not being

given a choice. This is not amalgamation. Nobody is willingly joining together.

They are being forcibly annexed to the great City of St. John's, as is the

Southlands, and I dealt with that on Friday, and the planning logic of putting

the Southlands in, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: The people of Southlands make a lot more

sense than the hon. gentleman from St. John's South, and there is not a soul in

the Southlands.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the minister would be well advised - now we

have had two motions; one put forward by my colleague, the traditional six month

hoist which was talked out and defeated; and there was the amendment which I

brought in on Friday which, of course, was not allowed to be debated because the

President of Treasury Board, the House Leader, brought in this closure motion,

so my amendment dies with the main motion. It is in fact being debated now. We

will vote on both motions at some point in time, forcibly tonight. That

amendment basically, of course, eliminated this whole bill. It just destroyed

the whole concept of the bill, and it voted against the bill.

Mr. Speaker, the minister would be well advised to have a

look at some of the facts. He said, in some of his speeches to the House over

the last couple of weeks, that there are economies of scale. It is more

efficient. It may well be more efficient for the Province. The Province may well

save some money here by downloading onto the municipalities, but there is no

great saving in the long run.

Just to take an example, if the minister were to look at fire

protection in this region - the fact that this legislation may well be forced

through this House this week will not reduce the cost of the present operation

of the St. John's Fire Department - not by five cents; nor will transferring it

from the minister's office to the City of St. John's save it. At the moment the

minister has an assistant deputy and perhaps other persons in his department who

are responsible for the operation of the fire department from an administrative

point of view. The City of St. John's will have to find people to do that. I

doubt if the assistant deputy minister or any of the administrative people in

the department will be eliminated because of the fire department being

transferred, but you can be sure that there will be additional administrative

staff required in the City of St. John's to administer the fire department and

all of the other regional services. The minister is fooling himself if he thinks

that on January 1 the people of the Goulds and Wedgewood Park are now going to

pay the same tax rate as the people of St. John's and be satisfied with

volunteer fire services.

Now in spite of the dedication of fire departments, volunteer

fire people around this Province - I was amazed at the Member for Carbonear who

attacked volunteer firemen around this Province. I will not get into that now. I

will take that on another day. But in spite of those types of comments,

volunteer firemen in this Province have saved this Government hundreds of

millions of dollars over the years in providing fire protection. This Government

could not afford to pay all those volunteer firemen and fire fighters -I imagine

there are probably some women fighting outside as well, outside of just Mount

Pearl. Mr. Speaker, when those municipalities are forced to participate in a St.

John's Fire Department, they are going to want a full service.

These numbers are subject to correction, but just a quick

thumbnail look at what happens - if you had the Goulds fire department, a

population of 4,700 people, Mr. Speaker, it is now costing them about $100,000

to operate that volunteer fire department. That is the amount of money that they

raise and perhaps some comes from the municipality. If they were to operate that

fire department with the minimal number of full-time paid personnel that would

be required to make it comparable to the service provided in the rest of the

region by the City of St. John's, it would cost about $2.5 million. That is what

it will cost and the numbers can be verified. Similarly Torbay, which has a

population of 3,730 people, there is approximately $150,000 a year now being

spent on fire protection. They would be about $2.5 million a year. That is an

additional almost $5 million a year - so far. Paradise and Elizabeth Park, they

have about 8,000 to 9,000 people between them. You can look at over $600,000 a

year additional, just based on the service that would be provided.

Mount Pearl, of course, to operate that station - there has

never been a question that the station in Mount Pearl will be opened and

operated. It has been a question of whom will do so. So that does not save any

money in St. John's. The Fire Commissioner's report, if the minister would ever

release it, will tell you that once Mount Pearl opens that does not mean that

one person in St. John's will not be required. The Brookfield station already

services an area far too large for a station of that size. His report clearly

states that Mount Pearl is needed anyway. So there is not one dollar to be saved

in St. John's because Mount Pearl opens, but you will still have to operate

Mount Pearl. So you are going to need another thirty or maybe forty fire

fighters in Mount Pearl to operate an equivalent level of service there.

So you are looking at $2.5 million at least for Mount Pearl,

under St. John's rates. Maybe more, with the union agreement. Now if the

minister ever releases the arbitration report on the labour negotiations with

the St. John's Fire Fighters Association, then we will see another 13 per cent

or 14 per cent increase coming from that report, to add on to all of that. St.

John's with that increase on will go from $6.4 million to $7.4 million. There is

another million dollars because of that arbitration report that will go in there

this year. So now we are up to - pushing on to $20 million. For fire protection

in this region. Now if the minister can show me where there is

cost-effectiveness in that, I fail to see it. I fail to see any benefit.

The minister has not listened to any of the petitions;

neither has he listened to the Fire Commissioner, who is an officer of

government, with his own act as passed by this Legislature not so long ago, that

gives him the right, mandate and responsibility to advise government on matters

relating to fire protection, fire prevention and fire fighting. The minister

refuses to listen to his own Fire Commissioner's report. In spite of the fact

that that Commissioner has a responsibility to advise the minister. Who does

this Government listen to? Where are they taking their advice?

Certainly they are not taking advice from their planners,

when they take the Southlands away from Mount Pearl. Because there is not one

planner on this old rock who recommended that. Nor will the minister find one.

So who are they listening to and why are they not prepared to listen to all

these collective voices that are so clearly telling this Government they are

making a sad mistake here? We have supported amalgamation. As I said, this is

not amalgamation by any stretch of the imagination. We as a Party have supported

amalgamation, we have supported regional services. We see neither one here.

Had this minister come forward with a clear, logical proposal

that provided for input into a regional services council, provided some control

and say into the operation, the costing and the financing of providing regional

services; had the minister come forward with a regional fire department; had he

accepted the offer that was made by the City of Mount Pearl last summer; had he

in fact kept his word to the City of Mount Pearl; the minister and the Premier

have broken their word to the City Council of Mount Pearl, Mr. Speaker, because

they made a commitment to the city council last summer or the 12th of October,

1989 that if there was, indeed, to be a regional fire service there would be a

regional board that controlled and operated with full input from all

municipalities involved, and that the cost of regional fire fighting would be

reduced because this Government would deal with the inefficiencies in the

existing system, and if they could not do that then they would permit the City

of Mount Pearl to own and operate its own fire department. They have broken

their word, Mr. Speaker, to the City of Mount Pearl. This minister has broken

his word to the people who elected him to this chamber. There will be no doubt,

Mr. Speaker, it will be the last time that they will elect him to this chamber.

I mentioned the poll that was done, Mr. Speaker. If the

minister thinks that I am speaking only for a handful of people in Mount Pearl,

if he thinks it is only the voice of the council in Mount Pearl, let me quote

him a poll that was done in his absence. I do not know if anybody has brought

this to his attention since he came back from Bristol. Eighty-three per cent of

the decided persons who were polled support Mount Pearl's position of having

their own separate fire department. A right, Mr. Speaker, that they have now in

the City of Mount Pearl Act, that every municipality in North America has. And

this legislation takes that right away only from the municipalities on the

Northeast Avalon.

They are not changing the legislation, Mr. Speaker, under the

Municipalities Act because they know that legislation is good legislation. It is

fair and just; it provides some safeguards against tyranny such as we are seeing

here. But they are saying: we will take from the House of Assembly - using our

majority, using closure to stifle debate, we will take it upon ourselves to

break the law. We will ask the House to give us permission to break the law in

this case. That is what is being done here, Mr. Speaker. This Government is

using this House of Assembly to allow them to break the law, to do what they

cannot do in accordance with the Municipalities Act, or the City of St. John's

Act, or the City of Mount Pearl Act, or the City of Corner Brook Act, or any

other municipal legislation in North America, Mr. Speaker. This House is being

asked to aid and abet them to break the law, and they will manipulate this

House, Mr. Speaker, sadly I must say, using their majority to force this

legislation through.

I find it incredible, Mr. Speaker, that this minister who

represents Mount Pearl - I wish I had more time - I could speak for hours and

hours on this debate if this Government would permit the debate to continue, but

I can only speak now in the few minutes that are available, and I only have

about a moment left. I can speak only for Mount Pearl, Mr. Speaker. Mount Pearl

will not stop this fight here. This fight will be carried on in the courts, and

it will be carried on in the next election. If that minister or anybody else

thinks that we are throwing in the towel, they are sadly mistaken. The people of

Mount Pearl will not rest against an injustice such as this.

If the minister had any concern at all perhaps he would just

think about those thirty young people who have been hired as fire fighters, and

he can point his self righteous finger at the city council and say: you mislead

them. They did no such thing. They knew, those young people when they applied

for positions, what they were faced with. They knew what this Government had

said they would do. Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not think any of them believe that

we could have a Government in this Province leading this House of Assembly that

would follow through with such a proposal. If the minister had been in the fire

hall in Mount Pearl last Thursday when those young people received their

certificates and seen the emotion there, the comradery and the unity that was

there, if he had seen the pride on their faces, Mr. Speaker, when we find out

that they had an average 96 per cent mark, the highest average, I think, ever

received by any class going through fire fighting training school. If he had

seen them, Mr. Speaker, Saturday afternoon, on their own time, scaling the walls

of Mount Pearl High School, lowering each other down by ropes from the roof of

the high school, continuing their training, in spite of the threat that is

hanging over their heads from this Government, maybe he would think a little bit

more about it.

Mr. Speaker, he will not think about it, I have no doubt. He

has made up his mind that he alone is right. I say to this House that his

officials are telling him he is making a serious mistake, the people in Mount

Pearl have told him he is making a serious mistake, the fire commissioner has

told him he is making a serious mistake, petitions with over 40,000 names have

told him he is making a mistake, and an independent poll, taken throughout the

whole region by professional pollsters, is telling him he is making a mistake.

Name me one person, Mr. Speaker, who is telling him he is not making a mistake,

other than the Premier. That is the bottom line, the Premier, Mr. Speaker, for

years has said that Mount Pearl must disappear. He is hell bend on that course

and he will not stop until he destroys Mount Pearl and the people who are in it.

Mr. Speaker, that will destroy that minister and it will destroy this Government

before I am finished with it.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEARN: It is rather difficult to stand in such a

debate for the third time, I believe, since the bill was put on the Order Paper

and brought into the House, to find that so many hon. members opposite refuse to

stand up and at least put on record their own feeling in relation to the

amalgamation issue, specifically the amalgamation of their own areas, at least

to speak in support of it. I can appreciate members not standing up, as we are

trying to do, to defend the rights of the people, but you would think they would

at least stand up and try to defend the minister and the Premier, who are trying

to ram such a bill down the throats of the people of the Province.

We see, Mr. Speaker, the old 'closure' crowd are at it again.

This present Government has brought in the closure motion more often than, I was

going to say any other government, but I would say more often than has ever been

done since Confederation. In all my years in the House, I think I only remember

once when closure was introduced, and since this present Government took place

almost every bill that comes before the House, just as some good, logical points

are being made by the Opposition, the Government brings in closure. Because they

know what will happen, that as people hear the debate and as the press, as weak

as it is in this Province, carries the stories from the House, people realize

the House is open, which many of them do not know and fewer of them care,

perhaps, and that there are things being said in the House, things that affect

them, because this is the House that makes the laws of the land. Every

provincial law under which we operate has been made in the past in this very

House. If we are to better our lot, any new legislation that is going to be

brought forth or any legislation that is going to be changed will be done in

this very House. If more people realize that, perhaps, we would have more people

in the Galleries and we would have more people paying attention to what happens

here.

People do not realize sometimes that it all takes place here

in this very House. But eventually word seeps out as to what is going on here,

and when we get bills that are being made into laws that are having a drastic

effect on the people of the Province, then people get upset. What happens here,

with this present Government, is, before a bill can even be debated to any

extent, so people know what is going on, so that they can have some say, so that

they can contact their own members who represent them and ask them to stand up

and be counted in the House and express the views of their constituents, which

they are supposed to do, before that happens at all - closure! Debate is cut

off. The bill is rammed through and the Province is stuck with poor legislation.

We saw it with the Lands Bill, we have seen it with the Amalgamation Bill - a

bill that is affecting a tremendous amount of people.

It was interesting earlier this evening in Question Period to

hear the Member for St. John's East ask some specific questions about the

escalating taxes in the City. It is only now that the people of St. John's are

starting to realize that their taxes are going to gradually creep up because -

MS. VERGE: Not so gradually.

MR. HEARN: Not so gradually, as the member says. Perhaps

not so gradually at all. That their taxes are going to jump up rather than creep

up, and that they are going to be stuck with extremely high tax bills. Because

of the land and the territory grab by the City Council that is forced upon them

now by Bill 50, when perhaps even they themselves did not realize the burden

which they were taking onto themselves. Perhaps they did not have a chance to

really look at the costs of some of the major facilities that have been put on

their shoulders. Now that they start to get time to analyze and realize the

extra financial burdens, they themselves are having second thoughts, and

certainly as people hear what is going on and delve into it they realize that

they are going to pay the price.

But as I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, it is not the St. John's

area that is going to pay the high price. They are certainly going to pay a

price. It is the people in the outlying areas. The people in the Goulds in

particular - more so than any other area involved in this amalgamation bill -

are going to pay heavily for the - I will not say services they are going to

get, because it will take quite some time to provide them with adequate

services. They are going to pay dearly because amalgamation was forced upon

them.

It is not a surprise, I suppose, to see Government again

bringing in closure and ramming a bill down our throat. The thing is that these

decisions are being made quickly without any consultation. It might be said: oh,

we had all kinds of studies and we had commissioners out there and we have

reports. Yes, they did. But what was said to the commissioners and what was

presented to Government in no way is similar to what Government brings in on its

own. This is what the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs wanted, this

is what the Premier dictated.

The Member for Mount Pearl was asking: who does Government

listen to? I could see members over there raising their eyes heavenwards. But it

was not Heaven to which they were looking, it was the eighth floor. Because it

is the Premier who makes the decisions for this Government.

MS. VERGE: Did you notice now there is a big red cross

outside over the Premier's office?

MR. HEARN: I did not realize that. The Member for Humber

East says there is a big red cross outside the Premier's office on the eighth

floor. Surely to God we are not going to have the Second Coming. Even though he

thinks that he is the -

AN HON. MEMBER: The first.

MR. HEARN: The first.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEARN: It is not shocking, it is what you are saying

behind his back and everybody else is saying. Because the Premier is dictating

to his Cabinet the same way as he dictates to the Province. His own whims. 'I

know what's best, you take it, you put up with it.'

Here is a typical example. I was speaking about no

consultation. I talked about the hearings and so on that were held where nobody

listened to what the people said. Information was taken, brought back to

Government - it was as if it never happened at all. Decisions were made without

paying any attention to what the people were saying.

A typical example: earlier tonight we had the opportunity to

present a petition from a number of people concerned about educational funding.

Changes are being made. The minister gets up and spouts off about how they are

going to revolutionize educational funding. People are getting sick and tired of

listening to the minister talking about educational funding when he is talking

about one thing and doing exactly the opposite. The minister does not know what

is going to happen. No more than the Minister of Fisheries knows what is going

to happen with the new board, or the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs knows what is going to happen with amalgamation in the long-term.

Nobody knows, because most of the time you have not even been

told what is going ahead. Not decisions being made by Government. There are

decisions being made on the Eight Floor by the Premier and when he gets around

to it, does he even call you in to consult you? No, he runs down to the Board of

Trade and tells them what he is going to do. Unfortunately, they should be out

listening. If the Minister of Education wants to find a better way to fund

education in the Province, he should go out and listen to what the people in the

field have to say. Let us see some consultation. There has not been any. The

minister has not consulted the field about a better way to fund education. He

did not consult the municipalities and the people affected, and did not tell

them the price they would pay if they are completely and utterly amalgamated, as

will happen shortly, because we can no longer delay this part of the bill going

through second reading. But let us assure members that we still have to go

through third reading in the committee stage and there are several points there

that certainly will have to be made.

The different clauses in the bill, besides the general bill,

itself, all of them leave concerns. I mentioned the other night, the first

clause is talking about the displaced workers. Has anybody given them any

consolation as to where they will end up? All we know is that they will be taken

over by the St. John's Municipal Council and they can more or less do with them

as they wish. We had the question asked a little earlier about the fire fighters

in Mount Pearl, a well-trained young force that would make any city or town

proud. It is unfortunate they cannot work in their own city. If they were living

anywhere else in Canada other than Mount Pearl, they would be able to go to work

in their own fire hall and service their own town. But they cannot do it here

because this Government wants to wipe out the City of Mount Pearl.

Then it goes on for pages and pages, about the fire hall and

regulations in relation to the fire department. We can understand, really, what

the whole piece of legislation is about. It is about Mount Pearl and its fire

hall, and that is a petty way to try to get even with the City of Mount Pearl.

On the final page - page 23 of the bill, 10(3), is the clause

that has to be the greatest insult to municipalities throughout this Province,

where the Government is saying, 'From now on we are not going to leave it up to

the people in an area as to what they want to do with their future, whether they

want to amalgamate, whether they want to expand, whether they want to change

their boundaries, whether they want to establish an area as a municipality,

whether they want to disestablish a town, we are going to do for them whatever

we feel like doing. We are going to give ourselves the power.' What makes it

sound so bad, and what makes it so bad is when government says, 'We are going to

give ourselves the power', and the majority party in the House of Assembly

forming the Government would have the numbers to do just that. And that is

unfortunate, because it is taking upon itself a power that no government should

have. 'We are going to give ourselves the power to do that from now on, in this

area, and then that sets a precedent for anywhere else in the Province to

amalgamate a town with a town or city, and to annex areas to a city or town, so

if Government feel they have this power now let us move away. The precedent is

set, let us move outside the Northeast Avalon and let us use it. If anybody

outside does not agree with what we intend to do, we will go out and use our

newly obtained powers, which we gave ourselves, to put them in their place. We

will move up the shore and take Cape Broyle and Calvert and say, You are going

to be amalgamated. We are not going to let you vote on it. We are not going to

let you discuss it. We have given ourselves the power to amalgamate a town with

a town or city and annex areas to a city or town. So we will set your

boundaries. We will tell you what land you are going to have, and what land we

are going to take away.' Look at what they did with Mount Pearl in relation to

Southlands, a move that makes absolutely no geographical, social or moral sense.

It just makes no sense. What it does is it just drives another nail in the

coffin of Mount Pearl, where the Premier can look at Mount Pearl, as he has done

in the past, and say, 'Eventually, you will be swallowed up and you will be no

more.' What else does clause 3 do? It gives Cabinet the power to establish an

area as a town. If Cabinet wants to form a municipality where people have

objections, it doesn't make any difference what the people say, Cabinet has the

power to establish an area as a town. Then finally, the insult of insults, it

gives Cabinet the power to disestablish a town. So they can go out to any area

and say, 'You no longer exist, you are now a part of some other area.'

Mr. Speaker, the main concern here is the complete lack of

consultation by Government in this whole amalgamation process. People in the

House of Assembly, fifty-two members, elected to represent their constituents,

just about all of them, if not all, will represent municipalities. We have

throughout the Province large unincorporated areas, I know, but I would venture

to bet in every district there are at least some municipalities, all of them

having concerns about what is happening; all of them undoubtedly talking to

their members; all of them expecting their members to stand up and defend them;

and all of them expecting to have some say in their own future, in their own

destiny. All of them who were established sometimes after local battles when

people, not understanding what establishing a municipality really meant, fought

it out in the local towns: whether we want a council or whether we don't;

whether we are going to be charged high taxes or whether we won't; and whether

we are going to have services or whether we won't.

Finally, most people see that establishing a local government

gives the area a chance to have some say in its own destiny, local councils

elected by local people to do the things that the locals want done. If they

don't like what is being done in the area, every few years they have a chance to

change the local councils.

Now, we see, with this present bill that is being rammed

through, that the present Government has no respect at all for the feelings or

the views of anybody. They do not care what people say, or whether they

establish municipalities or not, because they are going to take it upon

themselves to take that power to establish or disestablish as they so wish. So,

Mr. Speaker, there is a concern out there, that this Government is not

listening.

Amalgamation makes sense in a lot of areas, the coming

together of areas to share, to save money, to cut down on bureaucracy, and to

provide better services. In many areas it is being done. We have in extremely

remote, extreme rural areas of this Province, good examples, in fact, excellent

examples, of what amalgamation is all about: of how fire brigades share

facilities and equipment; of how communities and towns share facilities such as

stadiums, recreation centres, meeting halls, quite often, and equipment in some

areas for snow clearing and so on.

We see good examples already of areas where sharing makes

sense, but where they also have enough sense to hold onto their own local

governing unit, so that they can make decisions within their own community, and

whereby they know they are going to be represented on the larger body, whether

it be a joint council or whether it be an informal gathering which would run a

board, perhaps, that would run the fire fighting facilities in the area or the

recreation centres. They know that they have saved, but yet they protect their

own area.

Here we see a complete wiping out of local governments in a

number of areas, and all the power being vested in the City of St. John's, who

will now dictate to all the surrounding areas their future, including the taxes

they will pay, which will be the same, undoubtedly, as the people in the city

are now paying, people who have great services. They are expecting people who

have few services to support the same tax regime, the same tax structure.

Mr. Speaker, if these things had been properly discussed

beforehand, if people had had a chance to have input, if they knew what was

going on, what lay in the future for them, then undoubtedly, we would have a lot

more people concerned about this bill that is being rammed through this House

tonight.

Hopefully, down the road, lessons will be learned by the

members who have sat and not represented their constituents, who have not raised

the concerns that are being expressed to all of them, and the minister, in

particular, who has not even listened to his own constituents. Hopefully, the

lessons learned by these will be a lesson for other legislature leaders who will

sit in this hon. House. Because we have a tremendous amount of power in this

House, and we should use it to do good for the people who are out there, to make

laws and rules that improve the lot of people, not, without proper consultation,

to ram down their throats, things that will have an extremely heavy fallout;

that will have a devastating effect on a lot of them financially; that will take

away their local pride in other areas because they realize they have no more say

in what is going on around them, and they will just be pawns to a dictatorial

government.

Mr. Speaker, hopefully, before the night is through, some of

the hon. members who did not even bother to come listen will listen, and will

realize that the best thing to do with this is to take it back to the drawing

board, and maybe somewhere along the line we can have a piece of legislation

which will protect the amalgamating process. There is nothing wrong with

amalgamation, as we said, properly done, but we will do it the way the people

want it done, for the benefit of the people, so that, in the end, everyone will

be pleased. This is certainly not the case with the present Bill 50.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Burin - Placentia

West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Now we will hear it!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, would Chip and Dale keep quiet

over there while I get on with this?

Mr. Speaker, I want to have a few words on this gag order

that has been brought in by the Government once again. It seems to be synonymous

with the crowd opposite that once they get involved in a debate or discussion -

a debate in particular - with the Opposition, when they know that the Opposition

is right and what they are doing is wrong and is against the wishes of the

people they represent, the first thing the President of Treasury Board, the

Government House Leader - or whatever you may wish to call him - does, is bring

in the gag order, put the hobnailed boots to the democracy that our forefathers

fought for.

Today, we have this Government again implementing the gag

order, to cut off debate on an issue as vital as this issue is to everyone in

this Province. As I said before in the debate, it is not an issue defined

between Mount Pearl and St. John's, or the Northeast Avalon. This here sets a

precedent that could, at the whim of this Premier, wipe out every community in

rural Newfoundland. The basis of democracy is what this is all about, and that

is why the gag order has been brought in. Because, if they believed in

democracy, they would not bring in this bill, so we should not be surprised that

they brought in the gag order to prevent further debate on this piece of

legislation. None of them know anything about democracy. Certainly, they do not

believe very strongly in it.

The Member for Pleasantville who represents the City of St.

John's, and the Member for St. John's South, the two of them, in particular,

together with the Cabinet Ministers, realize what the Mayor of St. John's said

this morning - and I heard her, Mr. Speaker - that the Government passed the

Aquarena over to them, saying it was going to cost $600,000 to operate. Now,

they are finding it may, indeed, cost a lot more than $600,000. That is

downloading, not on the City of St. John's or City Hall, Mr. Speaker, it is

downloading on the people they represent, and they should have the courage of

their convictions and stand and vote against this Government imposing such harsh

tax measures on the people of St. John's.

How can the Minister of Education, with all his smiles and

nice gestures, look straight at the people he represents and say to them: I

voted to increase your tax, because we want to do what the Premier wants to do,

and that is take over the whole Northeast Avalon, because the Premier believes

bigger is better.

How will the Minister of Finance go back to the people in St.

John's Centre and tell them that when the city council brings down their budget

next year, and if there are tax increases - and there is a good chance there may

be - it will be caused by the Minister of Education, the Minister of Finance,

the Minister of Mines and Energy, and a group of them. You cannot look back at

the Member for St. John's South, he is not sitting around the Cabinet table

making the decisions, and I hope the people realize that, that it is

particularly the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Education and the Minister

of Mines and Energy who are passing this tax grab on the shoulders of the people

of St. John's.

MS. VERGE: The backbenchers are going along with it, just

the same.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, I am going to get to that.

DR. KITCHEN: Half a million dollars interest (inaudible)

cost.

MR. TOBIN: Half a million dollars. Who is going to pay

the half million dollars?

MS. VERGE: The constituents.

DR. KITCHEN: The Province is paying the interest on the

debt that was incurred when that was built.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sure, you built it.

MR. TOBIN: Did the people of St. John's build it or was

it built for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

AN HON. MEMBER: It was built for the Summer Games.

MR. TOBIN: It was built for the Newfoundland and Labrador

Summer Games, Mr. Speaker, not the St. John's Summer Games, and this Government

is now downloading it - there is no other word, only 'downloading' it - on the

taxpayers of the City of St. John's. It is being downloaded on the people of St.

John's, and the Minister of Finance can laugh all he likes, but he is one of the

people responsible.

What about when you bring in the Goulds? What about their

fire protection? Will a volunteer fire department in the Goulds be continued?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education, or the

Minister of -

AN HON. MEMBER: Finance.

MR. TOBIN: There is not much difference, they are one and

the same.

MR. SIMMS: Old foot-in-mouth Kitchen, boy.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, I am not talking about appearance, I am

talking about your contribution to downloading on the City of St. John's, it is

one and the same, Mr. Speaker, and if the Minister of Education doesn't like

being associated with the Minister of Finance, he should tell the Premier, not

me.

Now, is this just the beginning - that is the question I want

answered - just the beginning of passing over the Aquarena to the taxpayers of

St. John's? What about the swimming pools now attached to the arts and culture

centres, I believe, in Gander and Corner Brook? Are they next? That is the

question.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are too small.

MR. TOBIN: So what I am saying is that Bill 50 does not

apply strictly to the Northeast Avalon, Mr. Speaker.

DR. KITCHEN: Good idea.

MR. SIMMS: Now you have it on the record.

MR. TOBIN: Now we have it on the record, the Minister of

Finance, on behalf of the Government says it is a good idea to pass the swimming

pools attached to the arts and culture centres in Gander and Corner Brook on to

the city councils. And, Mr. Speaker, it will happen.

AN HON. MEMBER: It should.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Another fellow, the Deputy Speaker says

it should.

MR. SIMMS: Another fellow now, he doesn't know the war is

over but he is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, but I can tell you what the

Government should be doing. They should be building an arts and culture centre

on the Burin Peninsula with a swimming pool, the same as in other places in the

Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it was in the plan. I can

tell you where it was going. It was going in Salt Pond, Burin, if he wants to

know where it was going. It was in the plan, and if we had been re-elected, Mr.

Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: You could have built ten.

MR. TOBIN: What was that.

MR. SIMMS: Joey (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Okay, Mr. Speaker, we will accept that for a

minute.

So if we could build ten, Mr. Speaker, out of the Sprung

operation, maybe Tom Hickman will build ten out of the $19 million that you just

gave him. Maybe he will build ten, Mr. Speaker; Marco might build ten.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) twenty or forty Sprungs a year on

the Upper Churchill loss.

MR. TOBIN: Yes. Marco might build ten, on the $19 million

gift for the nursing homes in this Province.

MR. SIMMS: How many?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Forty a year.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Forty Sprungs a year, the Upper Churchill.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) some other contractor.

MR. R. AYLWARD: He should build them at the lowest

tender.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not saying they should

not build nursing homes! I am saying they should build more nursing homes, and

they should build more than they are building, but they should not build them at

$19 million above the lowest bid! That is what I am saying, Mr. Speaker. That is

what I am saying, and that is what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have

been saying for some time. That is what is being said in this Province. Nineteen

million dollars above the lowest tender, and you talk about Sprung. Yes, you

should talk about Sprung when you turn around and give Marco a contract for $19

million above the lowest tender.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of room -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: There is $19 million, Mr. Speaker, $19

million.

AN HON. MEMBER: Over the life of the agreement.

MR. TOBIN: Over the life of the agreement it will cost

$19 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, they have -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No. That is what is taking place in this

Province, and then when you go to debate something happening on the Northeast

Avalon, the first thing you do is get the gag order, you do not want it debated.

They do not want it repeated, but it will be continued to be repeated, and they

will never be allowed to forget the fact that they made a $19 million

contribution in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. TOBIN: Never, Mr. Speaker, will they be allowed to

forget that they made a $19 million contribution to a company that they know

very well.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What was that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with Bill 50, and why are we,

as an Opposition, opposing it? Because, as I said, it is a dangerous piece of

legislation. Extremely dangerous when this Government says: notwithstanding,

notwithstanding the City of Mount Pearl Act, notwithstanding the City of St.

John's Act, the St. John's Metro Board Act, and the Municipalities Act.

Now, Mr. Speaker, how much have we heard about the

notwithstanding clause in the Province of Quebec, and how much did everyone

condemn it? How much did everyone condemn it, Mr. Speaker? Well I can tell you

that this is a bigger charade, this is the biggest charade ever with a

notwithstanding clause when you override the rights of every council in this

Province. Every council, Mr. Speaker, the precedence is set to override this

Legislature.

MS. VERGE: To override the House of Assembly.

MR. TOBIN: To override the House of Assembly is right.

Precedence has been set for one man, Mr. Speaker, one dictator, to override the

whole councils, every elected body in this Province, with a notwithstanding

clause.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is the dictator?

MR. TOBIN: Who is the dictator? Mr. Speaker, you do not

know who the dictator is?

MS. VERGE: Under the red cross.

MR. R. AYLWARD: He has been away for a while.

MR. TOBIN: He has been away for a while. My colleague

says he was away for a while.

Mr. Speaker, the dictator in this Province happens to occupy

that seat right there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Me?

AN HON. MEMBER: You?

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, you will never occupy that seat

after the next election let alone that one.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: You have no worries about occupying seats in

this -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Anyone who displays the arrogance that you

display as a first time member has no worries about being returned to this

Legislature, Mr. Speaker. Anyone who displays that type of contempt and

arrogance -

MR. MATTHEWS: Going around with a batman suit on.

MR. TOBIN: Not just for the House -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: - but for your own colleagues, Mr. Speaker,

have no worries about occupying seats.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What was that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Your brother was a good poll captain. So is

the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker, a good poll captain.

MR. MATTHEWS: The only poll he lost.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Why don't you say it out loud? Never mind

whispering.

The fact of the matter is that the dictator has issued the

gag order, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: And I will tell you something right now, it is

not something that we take very lightly. Now the Member for St. John's South for

good reason has missed the majority of this debate. As a matter of fact, I was

with him I believe for most of it. I was with him for some of it, we were

attending a parliamentary conference. But for good reason he has missed part of

the debate.

He should have read up on the newspapers and everything else

in this Province. Because the City of St. John's, his constituents, are

complaining about the downloading this Government is putting on them. They hear

the Mayor of St. John's on talking about the millions of dollars more it is

going to cost the City. The Council is concerned about it. Everybody is finally

concerned about it. When this bill was brought to their attention there was

concern all of a sudden. They should be concerned. Because this Government does

nothing for municipalities.

It was only last week that they notified councils throughout

the Province that they have cut the roads component by $660 a kilometre. They

have slashed the road components and asked all of the taxpayers throughout the

Province to pick it up. Is that something to be proud of? The new Member for

Baie Verte - White Bay, is he going to go back to his constituents and tell

them: yes, I agree with cutting the road component to every community here?

MR. SMALL: You know I am!

MR. TOBIN: You are? Now, Mr. Speaker, that is another

thing we have on the record. The Member for Baie Verte - White Bay - and we

household people with what has been said. The Member for Baie Verte - White Bay

who just came into the Legislature said: you know I am. Proud to tell the people

of his district that this Government has slashed the roads component grant by

$660. Well, we just might circulate that to the voters of Baie Verte - White Bay

and see if they are so excited about supporting it.

MR. SMALL: You know why?

MR. TOBIN: Why?

MR. SMALL: There's another $600,000 for our hospital

(Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: To take away hospital beds? To take away

hospital beds?

MR. TOBIN: Oh! Now, Mr. Speaker, that is extremely

interesting. You get a Member for the Government saying he agrees with slashing

the roads component so they can keep -

AN HON. MEMBER: Give $600,000 (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: - $600,000 to his hospital. I would like -

that is very interesting, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Because what might happen - no (Inaudible). I

can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there are other places that you can get $600,000

without cutting the roads component in his district to keep his hospital open.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Marystown (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: And I have difficulty - no, they are after

doing enough to Marystown. This crowd has done enough to Marystown, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) put it back on the map!

MR. TOBIN: Yesterday they opened a new crude protein

plant in Marystown. Sixteen million dollars. Not a nickel of Government funding

from Federal or Provincial Governments. Do you know something, Mr.Speaker? There

are twenty people, twenty jobs. Yesterday morning there were twenty people who

went to work in that protein plant. Do you know something else? That was more

people than walked in through the Marystown Shipyard yesterday morning to go to

work, thanks to this Government. That is what is happening. Talk to some of the

people who have been laid off for the first time in twenty-five years and you

will find out what they think about this Government. Twenty-five years.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the one hundred and fifty

going to Norway?

MR. MATTHEWS: One hundred and fifty going to Norway?

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I can tell the Member

that there are already after being 150 in Norway. Under a technology agreement

years ago, Mr. Speaker, when you were trying to become president of the college,

Mr. Speaker, there were people over in Norway training.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that was

parliamentary but I will not say too much about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: A small object, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the deputy chairman of committees

and the deputy House who acts as a Speaker in this Legislature should know the

rules. Now, here he is in somebody else's chair shouting across the House all

night. Instead of that he should be up in his own chair, get recognized to

speak, and not shout across the House. One has to wonder, Mr. Speaker, if he

applies the rules the way he knows them, or does he apply them the way he acts

them out in this Legislature? That is what we have to ask ourselves because a

Deputy Chairman of Committees, Mr. Speaker, should not be showing such contempt

for the Chair in this House as he has been doing in the past half hour or so. I

do not want any more interjections from him because I am interested in debating

this issue, and the issue is the gag order. The issue is closure and as to why

Government does not want to debate Bill 50. Not one member opposite, Mr.

Speaker, not one, has stood in his place and defended this piece of legislation.

The minister introduced it, then hopped on a plane and got as far away as he

could get for a week so as he would not be here. The Minister of Municipal

Affairs hopped on a plane and flew as far away as he could. He is not here again

tonight, Mr. Speaker. No one else has stood to defend or speak against this

piece of legislation and I wonder why, Mr. Speaker? The Member for St. John's

South asks, who is the dictator? Well, let me ask the Member for St. John's

South why does he not get up and speak in this debate and tell us whether or not

he supports the downloading of services on taxpayers, his taxpayers, his

constituents? Let him stand up and tell us why he has not been involved in this

debate? Why not the other members, Mr. Speaker? The Member for Port de Grave

said everybody will hear more from John Efford when the House opens. Well, the

House has been open for two months now and he has not opened his mouth. He has

not spoken. That is what has happened.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.

I suppose sometimes the problem with having a very sincere

interest in trying to develop jobs in your district, having the opportunity to

go to another part of the world and have a look at tremendous amounts of

activity, I suppose the most impressive thing I saw last week, and I apologize

to the House that I could not be here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where were you?

MR. MURPHY: Actually, I was in Aberdeen, Scotland looking

at the offshore supply facilities that hopefully will be constructed in the

great district of St. John's South. I want to inform the hon. Member for Burin -

Placentia West that he can be assured I was on my constituents business. He

knows that full well.

I love following the Member for Burin - Placentia West. It is

a little difficult because we do not have the acoustics in this House and for at

least ten minutes the echoes keep bounding back and forth so I will try to

overcome those. What the hon. member is talking about, downloading on the

citizens of St. John's, really what he is saying is that this Government has

finally shown the people of Newfoundland that it is a Government of courage, a

Government of conviction, and a Government that wants to spread the load

equally. Now, that is what this bill is all about, Mr. Speaker. The people in

St. John's for years have paid a mil tax rate greater than any other community,

well outside of a few small communities, very small areas, who have had to pay a

little more for services. I know the Member for Humber East is ready to jump.

Relax, you will have your turn. When you look at an area where nearly 40 per

cent of the population of this Province lives -

MS. VERGE: What is the population of St. John's?

MR. MURPHY: The new St. John's is about 175,000 people.

MS. VERGE: The new St. John's?

MR. MURPHY: Yes, the new St. John's, alright? As the hon.

Member for Harbour Grace says, it should be 200,000. Now what happened here, Mr.

Speaker, was that the previous administration, without any direction, in a sense

of hodgepodge, let the City of St. John's fall into a situation whereby

communities developed.

I have nothing but sympathy for the people of Mount Pearl. I

understand the plight of the people of Mount Pearl, because of the tremendous

community spirit and strength that exists in there. I have some - some - respect

for the people in Wedgewood Park. I certainly have a lot of respect for people

in the Goulds. But I have more respect for fairness, for courage, and I have

more respect for people paying their equal share of services that are rendered.

So it is time for the hon. members to get up, and they can

orate, pound, bawl out and call this dangerous, and there is a sense of

misdirection here, and they can say what they like. But the real thing is - and

I do not want to remind them what one of their previous leaders said not long

ago. He said: you know, in all honesty, it looks very much like this Province is

headed towards 1934 again. This is what he said. He told the media: 1934 is upon

us. He said: I do not have the ruthlessness to run again.

That is what he told the people of this Province. What he

told the people of this Province was: I do not have the political courage to run

again, that is what he said. That is exactly what he said. Now, all of a sudden

there is some courage in this hon. House, there is some strength, there is some

form of government that is taking the plight of this Province, distributing the

good and distributing the pain - pain for gain.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mostly pain!

MR. MURPHY: Well, that is the hon. Member for Grand

Bank's opinion, mostly pain.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) did not say that.

MR. MURPHY: No, no, no. The other side of the coin, Mr.

Speaker, is that we have a piece of legislation here and certainly it hurts

people. It does hurt people. Maybe the citizens of St. John's will feel some

affect on this to equalize the people in the Goulds, to get the people in the

Goulds up to a standard. To get the people in Wedgewood Park - well, not

Wedgewood Park up to a standard. Because they have a standard now, a subsidized

standard.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. MURPHY: You know, Mr. Speaker, this piece of

legislation -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. MURPHY: This piece of legislation -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) shrimp boat?

MR. MURPHY: Now, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Burin -

Placentia West keeps talking about a gag order. Well, if we resurrected the

Norma and Gladys, you could not gag him with the Norma and Gladys full of water!

So this is not a gag order at all. This is a piece of legislation that is fair

and necessary. The citizens of St. John's have long supported the municipal tax

burden throughout this Province.

Now the hon. Member talks about the Aquarena. Are the

'aquaettes' from Humber coming into the Aquarena? Is it fair to ask people in

Spanish Room or Marystown to pay for the maintenance of the Aquarena? Is that

fair? Would you ask the people in the Goulds -

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes!

MR. MURPHY: - to pay for -

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes!

MR. MURPHY: - the maintenance of the Marystown rink?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Would you? Oh yes, oh, now let the record

show, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: - that the Member from the Goulds, the Member

for Kilbride, wants his constituents to pay for the maintenance of the rink in

Marystown. Now that is the logic that we had for seventeen years. No wonder this

Province owes nearly $4.5 billion. No wonder the taxpayers of this Province have

to pay nearly $550 million to service the debt! Absolutely no wonder. That is

the kind of logic and thinking that has this Province, and the taxpayers of this

Province, where it and they are.

Now you know, Mr. Speaker, again we have reached a

crossroads, an epoch, in the municipal responsibility of this Province. This

Government and this Minister have sat down and we have had a long, drawn-out two

years on amalgamation. Nobody likes it, there are members on both sides of the

House who disagree with it. There are all kinds of people out there who are

upset about it, but, but, but -

MS. VERGE: Are you all voting for it?

MR. MURPHY: If it is for the good of the people of the

Province - I mean, if the people in Nain or the people in Labrador West or the

people in Grand Falls or the people in Corner Brook, alright, tonight are asked

to pay for some kind of municipal service in the City of St. John's, there would

be a horrendous outcry, and the people in the City of St. John's have been

supporting its neighbours for a long, long time. A long, long time, and now, in

the short-term, it may cause some pain, but -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is a stupid argument.

MR. MURPHY: Well, the stupid argument is when Conception

Bay South became a town, Mr. Speaker, Foxtrap did not lose its identity,

Chamberlains did not lose its identity, Topsail did not lose its identity -

AN HON. MEMBER: Newtown in Mount Pearl.

MR. MURPHY: Yes, what happened to Newtown? These hon.

members stand up with their purification and holier than thou attitude, with the

halos all ready to come down and crush them. There was a little town called

Newtown and the hon. Member for Mount Pearl, came charging to his Cabinet

colleagues and said: We cannot have this! We cannot have this, and what

happened, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: Hobnailed boots.

MR. MURPHY: - you talk about hobnailed boots? Hobnailed

boots hello. Compressors and jack hammers and that was the end of Newtown.

Newtown gone, disappeared off the map because it was convenient for the

Government of the day. Now, the hon. Member for Mount Pearl, who was totally

against regional services board, now there is a sense of regional service board

acceptance. Oh yes, let us share all these services, let us do all these good

things, that is fine but let us not lose our identity.

Now, I have said it before in this House and I will say it

again. I respect and admire the people of Mount Pearl and, if you look at what

is going on at City Hall, you would wonder if the hon. Member for Mount Pearl is

not correct when he says that the administration costs in that city are a lot

less and there is more done for the buck in Mount Pearl than is done in St.

John's, and that very well may be, so it is time for us to have a look at the

councillors in St. John's. It is a good time for us to have a look at them and

what they are doing to run the business affairs of this City, and maybe we will

have a lot more for our mil rate, Mr. Speaker, than we are getting. I am fed up,

every Monday night you turn on the television and what do we have? Character

assassination, no accomplishment, turn on the cameras and watch those who have

other ambitions down the road, eating one another alive.

AN HON. MEMBER: Looney Tunes.

MR. MURPHY: Looney tunes, that is right. I will tell you

what-

MR. TOBIN: You should not be allowed to (inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: It has a better rating than Stacey's Jamboree

and we all remember that. The only thing is they do not have to wash the smell

of gas off their hands, right?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Stop defending your brother-in-law.

MR. MURPHY: You know, Mr. Speaker, they are over there

now and they are saying they are gagged and they are this and they are that but

all the problems they have - I want to remind the hon. members when they talk

about gag orders, the Liberals, who were then the Opposition, and who will be in

Opposition again in 2035, will - you could not gag the opposition, how can you

gag the opposition when the House is not open, when you cannot get through the

doors -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: I mean my hon. colleague from Port de Grave,

kept these hon. gentlemen and some of the hon. ladies Opposite, awake night

after night after night, afraid to open the House because they knew that my

colleague had the goods on them. He bought more flashlight batteries than any

ten men alive in Newfoundland because he was out doing his homework, so do not

talk about gag orders. We are not here to listen to that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: - and if the disbursement or responsibility

and tax dollars are what the hon. gentlemen Opposite are against, let them

stand. If they do not want to have everybody paying their fair share, if they do

not want to have equalization in tax structures, if that is what they are

against -

MR. SIMMS: Equalization?

MR. MURPHY: Yes, equalization. Now, the hon. Oppositio